The Trump and Biden Administration “Big Tech” monopolization cases rely on the analytical framework set out in the “Microsoft Cases.” The framework is controversial, but it is controlling precedent in the D.C. Circuit, substantially influenced Judge Mehta’s liability opinion in U.S. v. Google LLC (search) and is almost certain to impact Judge Mehta’s views on the proper remedy in that matter. Bilal is joined by professors Andy Gavil and Harry First—authors of one of the seminal histories of the Microsoft cases—to discuss the history of the case and its continuing relevance to monopolization law and the current “Big Tech” cases.
The Trump and Biden Administration “Big Tech” monopolization cases rely on the analytical framework set out in the “Microsoft Cases.” The framework is controversial, but it is controlling precedent in the D.C. Circuit, substantially influenced Judge Mehta’s liability opinion in U.S. v. Google LLC (search) and is almost certain to impact Judge Mehta’s views on the proper remedy in that matter.
Bilal is joined by professors Andy Gavil and Harry First—authors of one of the seminal histories of the Microsoft cases—to discuss the history of the case and its continuing relevance to monopolization law and the current “Big Tech” cases.
Links
The Microsoft Antitrust Cases: Competition Policy for the Twenty-first Century, Andrew Gavil & Harry First
Antitrust Remedies and the Big Tech Platform Cases, Harry First
Trinko Creep, Andrew Gavil, Promarkets
Probability, Presumptions and Evidentiary Burdens in Antitrust Analysis, Andrew Gavil and Steve Salop